Skip to Content
10-26-2009 @ 1:15PM
It is up to the raid leader to decide the looting rules at the beginning of a raid.A trusted Master Looter and "aware" raid leader will negate any of these problems.
10-26-2009 @ 2:25PM
The thing is, only in a narrow set of situations is this even a "problem". As long as both players have a legit reason for rolling on the item, then there's no real problem with them trading it back and forth. The problem only comes out when one player rolls on something they don't need just to give the other a better chance.I'll admit, I run with my wife (an Ele Shaman). I would *never* roll on a piece of caster mail (as a mage), just to increase her odds of winning. On the other hand, we both roll on caster jewelry and if I win, she might be able to convince me that she needs it more than I do. The same is true with things like mounts or really anything else that we both can use and don't already have. As long as that's the case, there really is no problem.The simple solution to keep it from happening in the cases where you don't want it to and allow it in the cases where it's OK is this: Pay attention to who rolls. If they can't/shouldn't use it, then don't let them roll. If they can and then want to give it up to another player, that's their prerogative.
10-26-2009 @ 2:46PM
/agree bob, only longer and further down the page.Why can't everyone be this succinct? XD
10-26-2009 @ 3:13PM
No, Bob, you're still wrong. Say 3 people roll on a caster ring - you, your wife and person C. You don't really need it - it's a sidegrade for you. You roll 90, your wife rolls 80, person C rolls 85. You win, give it to your wife. IN that case person C got screwed if you'd not have rolled except to give your wife an extra show at it. Loot in a raid needs to benefit the raid. Not just individual toons. The short version of our loot rules is this: Don't be a dick.Double rolling is being a dick.
10-26-2009 @ 3:27PM
@ClevinsBob never said he didn't need the ring. He said that his wife could convince him that she needs it more.As a married man myself, being convinced to give your wife something might not be so bad. ;-DAlso, he did say, "The problem only comes out when one player rolls on something they don't need just to give the other a better chance." Given that sentance, I don't think he would roll on something that was a sidegrade.Don't be so harsh, buddy.
10-26-2009 @ 3:56PM
Still, the same issue arises even if he could use it.Bob - Rolls on a necklace that's an bit of an upgrade. Perhaps iLevel 230 to iLevel 245. Gets a 90.Random Player - Rolls on the necklace that's a significant upgrade. Perhaps iLevel 200 to iLevel 245. Gets an 85.Bob's Wife - Rolls on the necklace that's a significant upgrade. Perhaps iLevel 219 to iLevel 245. Gets an 80.So, Bob won the roll. However, the necklace is a bigger upgrade for his wife, so he gives it to her. Meanwhile, Random Player gets screwed out of the Necklace, even though it's the biggest upgrade for him, because he assumed Bob won the roll and would be wearing the necklace. In the raids I go on, if several people roll on something, and the winner decides it's not that big of an upgrade and would benefit the others better, it goes to the SECOND highest roller. That way it's at least still reasonably fair. In cases where it's just Bob and his Wife rolling on an item, if he wants to pass the item to her, I have no issue with it. But, if there's more than just them rolling on it, this practice is little better than having 2 people roll to give one of them better odds at an item.
10-26-2009 @ 4:02PM
Why was Clevins downrated? Regardless of whether or not the loot is an upgrade or a sidegrade for Bob, Person C still got screwed over in Clevins' scenario.
10-26-2009 @ 4:03PM
I have to respectfully disagree with Bob. Even though you are not rolling on items your character cannot equip you are still essentially giving some people more chances at an item than others. Would you be comfortable if all the other casters saw what you are doing and started rolling on caster jewelry to pass it to every character but you and your wife? I am a fan of keeping the random roll's clean with each person only having a "1 in X" chance at an item, X being the number of people rolling at the time.It's not the end of the world of course, but it does sound like it encourages every player to form secret alliances.
10-27-2009 @ 1:12PM
I appear to be in a minority, but I disagree with the blog. Husband and wife Players A & B can both use an item and roll on it and Player C rolls too. Player A wins the roll.It does NOT MATTER whether the loot goes to Player A or Player B, Player C LOST THE ROLL.Everyone has a 1 in X chance of winning. Player C's chances of winning are still 1 in 3. His win chances did not change. While you may argue that Player A's chances are 2 in 3, that's only valid if you grant that Player B's chance of winning is 0 in 3.The only way this becomes unfair imo is for some reason you don't count the winner's roll if he passes the item on. But I can't picture why a raid leader that would do that.
First time? A confirmation email will be sent to you after submitting.
Members enter your username and password.
Enter your AOL or AIM screenname and password.
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.